This editorial introduces  the debate between Alter and Benbasat and Zmud about whether IT artifacts or systems in organization are the appropriate model for a core for IS. It also describes the articles on the dedbate by 10 authors and gives some opinions of the editor on the subject

Gray, Paul

English

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

Communications of the Association for Information SystemsVolume 12 Article 42November 2003Introduction to the Debate on the Core of theInformation Systems FieldPaul GrayFollow this and additional works at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/caisThis material is brought to you by the AIS Journals at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in Communications of theAssociation for Information Systems by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contactelibrary@aisnet.org.Recommended CitationGray, Paul (2003) "Introduction to the Debate on the Core of the Information Systems Field," Communications of the Association forInformation Systems: Vol. 12 , Article 42.DOI: 10.17705/1CAIS.01242Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol12/iss1/42    EDITORIAL: INTRODUCTION TO THE DEBATE ON THE CORE OF THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS FIELD   Paul Gray Editor, CAIS cais@cgu.edu   INVITATION This editorial introduces a debate about what should be the IS core. The debate is in the form of a series of short papers. Readers of CAIS are invited to participate in this debate by submitting their own paper to this series. Papers should bring new perspectives or present alternative critiques from the ones presented here.  CAIS does not favor one position or another.  We seek publishable articles on all sides. Articles should be short (about 10 pages plus references and figures, 1½ spaced) and to the point.  Papers will receive ‘light review’; that is, they will be sent to an associate editor and the editor for their comments. Papers will receive quick turnaround. Submit papers to cais@cgu.edu. Please follow the CAIS style sheet (found at http://cais.isworld.org/style.doc) in creating your contribution. Papers for which people seek full peer review should be submitted to our sister publication, the Journal of AIS (JAIS). Submit electronic copy to both dstraub@gsu.edu and JAIS@mccombs.utexas.edu  BACKGROUND In June of this year, Izak Benbasat of the University of British Columbia and Robert W.  Zmud of the University of Oklahoma [2003] published an article titled “The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline’s Core Properties” in the MIS Quarterly. The article was accompanied by an Editor’s Comments section by Ron Weber, editor-in-chief of MISQ, titled “Still Desperately Seeking the IS Artifact”.1 Six months earlier, Phillip Ein-Dor, then President of the AIS,  chaired a meeting at ICIS in Barcelona to discuss these and related  issues with a group of long-time leaders in the IS field. The meeting and the two MISQ articles are part of a wave of discussion within the IS field: Is there a Crisis? Is there a Core? If so, what is the Core?   When the MISQ articles appeared in the June 2003 issue, Steven Alter of the University of San Francisco and a Senior Editor of CAIS, wrote a long reply and submitted it to MISQ.  The paper was deemed too long for an MISQ response and Alter was told it would have to be cut by more                                                      1 Members of AIS who did not yet read these important articles can find them by going to the AIS home page at http://aisnet.org/ and selecting eMISQ from the menu at the top of the page. than half before going through a full review process. Alter believed that this approach would result in a long delay that would interrupt rather than promote serious discussion of the issues and would require him to remove some of the examples and lengthy tables that he believed were essential to convey his main points convincingly. He opted instead to revise his original submission based on some of the initial comments from MISQ and submit the article, titled “Sidestepping the IT Artifact, Scrapping the IS Silo, and Laying Claim to ‘Systems In Organizations’” to CAIS.  I accepted the article [Alter 2003a], which precedes this series because I believed that the discussion of the core, if such exists, was important to the IS community. To expand the discussion beyond Benbasat & Zmud and Alter, I invited each of the associate editors of CAIS to contribute a think piece (of approximately 10 pages when 1.5 spaced) in response to both papers. Ten of them did. The ten articles that resulted plus Alter’s response to them part of a series called The IS Core. A list of the articles in this series published thus far is shown in Table I.2 Table I. Articles in  IS Core Series Article Number*   Title Author 41 IS Core – XI Sorting Out Issues About the Core, Scope, and Identity of the IS Field Steven Alter U. of San Francisco 40 IS Core – X Information Systems Research and Practice: IT Artifact or a Multidisciplinary Subject?  Christopher Holland, University of Manchester 39 IS Core - IX The 3 Faces of IS Identity: Connection, Immersion, and Fusion Omar El Sawy U. of Southern California 38 IS Core – VIII Towards Information Systems As A Science Of Meta-Artifacts Juhani Iivari University of Oulu 37 IS Core – VII Defining the Core Properties of the IS Discipline: Not Yet, Not Now Michael Myers Auckland University 36 IS Core – VI Further Along the Road to the IT Artifact Y. Wu and Carol Saunders U. of Central Florida 35 IS Core – V Defining the IS Core  Ruth Guthrie California State U. 34 IS Core – IV IS Research: A Third Way Don McCubbrey University of Denver 33 IS Core – III The Core Domain Debate and the International Business Discipline: A Comparison P. Candace Deans University of Richmond 32 IS Core – II The Maturing IS Discipline:  Institutionalizing our Domain of Inquiry Dan Power U. of Northern Iowa 31 IS Core –I Economic and Systems Engineering Approaches to IS Identity Donna Dufner U. of Nebraska-Omaha *Denotes article number in CAS Volume 12   As you will see when you read the articles in the series, viewpoints range over a broad spectrum, with none of the articles fully accepting either Benbasat and Zmud or Alter’s views.  Three responses (Nos. I through III) use the debate to introduce viewpoints that reflect the impacts of the arguments on their fields of specialization.   Of course, when a journal presents a series of opinions, the authors whose work is being discussed are offered the opportunity to reply.  While Benbasat and Zmud chose not to reply at this time, Alter responded in the eleventh paper in the series by identifying and summarizing key                                                      2 Note: CAIS articles are published in a push-down stack; that is, the latest article is on top of the next to last article, and so on.  The articles in this series are organized in this way.  Thus, Alter’s response follows this editorial as Article 41.     issues addressed by the other authors and accentuating areas of agreement and disagreement through brief excerpts that illustrate these authors’ views.  Readers can begin either by reading Alter’s summary and response and then the individual responses or by looking at the individual viewpoints and then Alter’s response.   THE EDITOR’S PERSONAL VIEW In thinking about the debate I was struck by the role language plays in all of it.  Although most of us think about information systems in terms of hardware, software, people, and policies, a large fraction of our ideas are expressed in language. And language matters. It matters in what you call things.   I personally think the term artifact is an unfortunate choice because it raises two images in the minds of those outside our field, which can be seen from the following examples of the definitions given in the papers: • An artifact as a physical piece, such as a Mesopotamian vase, found by anthropologists • An artifact of the data in an experiment where the numbers give a different impression about reality than what is actually the case. That is, an artifact is not the real thing.  While artifact is a serious academic term, I doubt that the image it projects to the non-specialist is one that people in IS want to convey to their colleagues in Schools of Business or in Computer Science or wherever IS is housed. I therefore strongly recommend that, as a discipline, we find a better term. A second consideration for me is what is the core and where are the field’s boundaries? Do defining these terms explicitly wind up limiting what is considered legitimate IS research? Core and boundaries are elastic, growing and shrinking over time.  Phenomena come and go. Consider three technologies: twenty five years ago, personal computing was a blip; a decade ago, wireless computing was a blip; today, wearable and immersion computing are blips.  Yet, in my opinion, the social, organizational, international, and societal aspects of these technologies are or will be legitimate areas for IS research.   Limiting approvable research to what is in the mainstream currently, in an era when it typically takes three years from the start of a project to its publication, risks making our work a study of IS history, not IS future; a position we should not be in as a field.   In thinking about what is researchable, we should take into account the classic conundrum of statisticians: we can make errors of the first kind by studying something we should not and errors of the second kind by not studying something we should.  As any statistician knows, you cannot guard fully against both; if you take the first position you do some unnecessary work; if you take the second you miss things which are important. In many respects, the arguments presented deal with which kind of error to avoid. I come down on the side of avoiding errors of the second kind. CONCLUSIONS The debate is an ongoing one, running back over many years, perhaps even as long as the discussion of the relevance of our research. A bibliography of papers important to the debate follows.  The debate certainly won’t be resolved with these papers or even after many more are published. Nonetheless, the discussion of issues such as the IS Core are healthy for our profession because they help all of understand the theoretical, philosophical, and practical aspects of the work we do.  I look forward to your contributions.    BIBLIOGRAPHY Alter, S. (2003a), “Sidestepping the IT Artifact, Scrapping the IS Silo, and Laying Claim to ‘Systems In Organizations’” Communications of the Association for Information Systems (12)30, November.  Alter, S. (2003b), “Sorting Out Issues About the Core, Scope, and Identity of the IS Field” Communications of the Association for Information Systems (12)41, November. Benbasat, I. and Weber, R. (1996), “Research Commentary: Rethinking ”Diversity” in Information Systems Research”, Information Systems Research, (7)4, pp. 389-399 Benbasat, I. & Zmud, R.W. (1999), “Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance”, MIS Quarterly, (23)1, pp. 3-16 Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. (2003) “The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline’s Core Properties”, MIS Quarterly (27)2, June pp.183-194. Galliers, R. D. (2003) “Change as Crisis or Growth? Toward a Trans-Disciplinary View of Information Systems as a Field of Study: A Response to Benbasat and Zmud's Call for Returning to the IT Artifact” Journal of the Association for Information Systems (4)13,November, pp. 337-351 Hirschheim, R. and H. K. Klein (2003) "Crisis in the IS Field? A Critical Reflection on the State of the Discipline," Journal of the Association for Information Systems (4) 5, pp. 237-293. Orlikowski, W. J. and C. S. Iacono (2001) "Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact," Information Systems Research (12) 2, pp. 121-134. Robey, D. (1996) "Diversity in information systems research: Threat, Promise, and Responsibility," Information Systems Research (7) 4, pp. 400-408. Walls, J., Widmeyer, G.R. and El Sawy, O.A. (1992), “Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS”, Information Systems Research, (3)1, pp. 36-59 Weber, R. (1987), “Toward a Theory of Artifacts: A Paradigmatic Base for  Information Systems Research”, Journal of Information Systems, (1), pp. 3-19 Weber, R. (2003), “Still Desperately Seeking for the IT Artifact” (editor’s comments), MIS Quarterly, (27)2, pp. iii-xi     Copyright © 2003 by the Association for Information Systems. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page. Copyright for components of this work owned by others than the Association for Information Systems must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior specific permission and/or fee. Request permission to publish from: AIS Administrative Office, P.O. Box 2712 Atlanta, GA, 30301-2712 Attn: Reprints or via e-mail from  ais@aisnet.org .                                                 ISSN: 1529-3181 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Paul Gray Claremont Graduate University AIS SENIOR  EDITORIAL BOARD Cynthia Beath Vice President Publications  University of Texas at Austin  Paul Gray                                 Editor, CAIS                                Claremont Graduate University Sirkka Jarvenpaa Editor, JAIS University of Texas at Austin Edward A. Stohr Editor-at-Large Stevens Inst. of Technology Blake Ives                                Editor, Electronic Publications  University of Houston Reagan Ramsower Editor, ISWorld Net Baylor University CAIS ADVISORY BOARD   Gordon Davis University of Minnesota  Ken Kraemer Univ. of California at Irvine Richard Mason Southern Methodist University Jay Nunamaker                    University of Arizona Henk Sol Delft  University Ralph Sprague University of Hawaii CAIS SENIOR EDITORS  Steve Alter U. of San Francisco Chris Holland Manchester Business School Jaak Jurison Fordham University Jerry Luftman Stevens Institute of Technology CAIS EDITORIAL BOARD    Tung Bui University of Hawaii  H. Michael Chung  California State Univ.  Candace Deans University of Richmond Donna Dufner U.of Nebraska -Omaha Omar El Sawy  University of Southern California Ali Farhoomand The University of Hong Kong  Jane Fedorowicz Bentley College Brent Gallupe Queens University, Canada Robert L.  Glass Computing Trends Sy Goodman  Georgia Institute of Technology Joze Gricar University of Maribor  Ruth Guthrie California State Univ.  Juhani Iivari University of Oulu Munir Mandviwalla  Temple University M.Lynne Markus  Bentley College Don McCubbrey  University of Denver Michael Myers University of Auckland,  Seev Neumann                  Tel Aviv University, Israel Hung Kook Park  Sangmyung University,  Dan Power  University of Northern Iowa Nicolau Reinhardt  University of Sao Paulo,  Maung Sein  Agder University College,  Carol Saunders University of Central Florida Peter Seddon  University of Melbourne Australia Doug Vogel  City University of Hong Kong,  Hugh Watson  University of Georgia Rolf Wigand  University of Arkansas Peter Wolcott University of Nebraska-Omaha ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL                                                                              Eph McLean  AIS, Executive Director Georgia State University Samantha Spears Subscriptions Manager Georgia State University Reagan Ramsower Publisher, CAIS Baylor University  

Introduction to the Debate on the Core of the Information Systems Field

https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3209&amp;context=cais

Introduction to the Debate on the Core of the Information Systems Field

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)